This is very true. I know they are only allowed to use ball ammo. Do you think they would have better results with the 9mm if they could use +p's and hollow points? I worked once with an Israeli solder back in the 70's and all they wanted was the 45acp because it would stop with one shot and the 9mm took 2 to 3.

I know lots of soldiers, including many OIF and OEF vets, and I know very few who are clamoring for .45s. Most of them don't give a damn what caliber a given weapon is, as long as it's reliable. Especially a pistol. The Arizona Guard just had a unit of about 150 guys, some of them very close friends of mine, come back from Iraq (Baghdad and Ramadi areas, so they saw some real action). 95% of them carried pistols on the mission, but not a single soldier actually used a pistol in combat.

I think the whole idea of huge masses of soldiers and marines screaming for .45s is a myth propagated by traditionalist gun enthusiasts who have never forgiven the military for ditching the .30 for the 5.56mm and .45 for 9mm. There might be some special ops types who demand .45s, but spec ops missions are often totally different from the regular (if unglamorous) infantry/MP/SECFOR missions that comprise the vast majority of modern wartime activity.

Is a .45 better than a 9mm, when both are loaded with ball? Sure, no question about it. But the .45 also kicks harder and holds half the number of cartridges, which are big considerations, particularly in today's military environment.

It's sort of like the whole gun magazine/internet brouhaha about the 6.8mm. I talked to maybe two soldiers who even knew about it, but it was all over the shooting industry. Where is the 6.8mm now?

The vast majority of todays military havent had much, if any, experience with anything but the 5.56 and 9mm thus no real concern by them for anything better,stronger. I only KNOW this much.....When I was in the USAF Air Police there wasnt a day go by that when we were being issued our weapons at the beginning of our shifts that someone didnt say they wished they were being issued a .45 instead of the CS S&W .38's we were issued. Having seen what a .38 cal is capable of "I" would GLADLY trade 17 rounds of 9mm for 7-8 .45's instead.

The vast majority of todays military havent had much, if any, experience with anything but the 5.56 and 9mm

That's only partially accurate. Just about every soldier has experience with the M240B machinegun, which is 7.62x51mm. Also, everyone is very familiar with more powerful weapons like the M2 .50, etc.

....When I was in the USAF Air Police there wasnt a day go by that when we were being issued our weapons at the beginning of our shifts that someone didnt say they wished they were being issued a .45 instead of the CS S&W .38's we were issued. Having seen what a .38 cal is capable of "I" would GLADLY trade 17 rounds of 9mm for 7-8 .45's instead.

Thanks for your service! Police work is generally a very different environment than the battlefield, though. The battlefield is more chaotic, thus making the shooter more likely to miss (and maybe even miss a lot). As well, on the battlefield, the shooter will have an M4, M249, or a crew-served weapon, thus making the pistol rather irrelevant. Also on the battlefield, one is more likely to encounter an armored opponent, indicating a need for more rounds with more penetration.

Other than as a backup when clearing houses (in the event the M4/M249 goes down), and some spec ops missions, there's really little use for the pistol in battle. Thus, it barely matters what caliber it carries. What does matter is that it is relatively easy to use by most soldiers (including females) and works reliably.

Of course, soldiers are always convinced that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. They fall victim to all sorts of myths about the AK being vastly better than the M4, even if they've never shot an AK. They hear that spec ops is experimenting with 6.8mm, so that must be far better than 5.56mm. And they read in a magazine that the .45 is a death ray compared to 9mm, so it must be better.

That's only partially accurate. Just about every soldier has experience with the M240B machinegun, which is 7.62x51mm. Also, everyone is very familiar with more powerful weapons like the M2 .50, etc.

Thanks for your service! Police work is generally a very different environment than the battlefield, though. The battlefield is more chaotic, thus making the shooter more likely to miss (and maybe even miss a lot). As well, on the battlefield, the shooter will have an M4, M249, or a crew-served weapon, thus making the pistol rather irrelevant. Also on the battlefield, one is more likely to encounter an armored opponent, indicating a need for more rounds with more penetration.

Other than as a backup when clearing houses (in the event the M4/M249 goes down), and some spec ops missions, there's really little use for the pistol in battle. Thus, it barely matters what caliber it carries. What does matter is that it is relatively easy to use by most soldiers (including females) and works reliably.

Of course, soldiers are always convinced that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. They fall victim to all sorts of myths about the AK being vastly better than the M4, even if they've never shot an AK. They hear that spec ops is experimenting with 6.8mm, so that must be far better than 5.56mm. And they read in a magazine that the .45 is a death ray compared to 9mm, so it must be better.

Just curious? How many combat tours have you served? Have you ever been shot at at all?
Feel free to continue your lecture on what the battlefield is like to those you know little or nothing about.

Titusville where I live is a military town and we have had a lot of folks from around here who have served over there. The men coming home that I have talked to said they would much perfer the 1911 .45 over the 9mm. The trouble is ammo is scarce for the .45. There is very few men with the .45 except for a few shiney wheels officers. That may be the reason for never using the side arm. You only want to have to shoot that sucker once. I have heard more than one say the 9mm is useless over there.

There is very few men with the .45 except for a few shiney wheels officers. That may be the reason for never using the side arm. You only want to have to shoot that sucker once. I have heard more than one say the 9mm is useless over there.

Just curious? How many combat tours have you served? Have you ever been shot at at all?
Feel free to continue your lecture on what the battlefield is like to those you know little or nothing about.

Not lecturing, and no offense intended, just pointing out that the battlefield is different from police work and may require different weapons. Nothing at all wrong with police work - my own father was a cop and went to Desert Storm as an MP.

I haven't been in combat, and have never implied that I have. But I have talked rather extensively to literally dozens of very recent veterans of the fights in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Since I'll be in the The 'Stan in the spring, I naturally am very interested in what they say. I base my opinions largely on what they are telling me, which seems to have little in common with the conventional wisdom I read on the internet or in gun magazines.

Maybe my current opinions will change once I get in-country, but as it stands now, I just don't believe that soldiers are as concerned and obsessed with .45s (or 6.8mm rifles, or whatever) as gun enthusiasts would like to believe.

Not lecturing, and no offense intended, just pointing out that the battlefield is different from police work and may require different weapons. Nothing at all wrong with police work - my own father was a cop and went to Desert Storm as an MP.

I haven't been in combat, and have never implied that I have. But I have talked rather extensively to literally dozens of very recent veterans of the fights in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Since I'll be in the The 'Stan in the spring, I naturally am very interested in what they say. I base my opinions largely on what they are telling me, which seems to have little in common with the conventional wisdom I read on the internet or in gun magazines.

Maybe my current opinions will change once I get in-country, but as it stands now, I just don't believe that soldiers are as concerned and obsessed with .45s (or 6.8mm rifles, or whatever) as gun enthusiasts would like to believe.

You still dont get it do you? I referred to .38 cal pistols while I was an AP and you ASSUME I have only been an AP in the USAF. I served 2 years in the 116 Armored Cav in the US Army BEFORE I RE-ENLISTED in the USAF cuz ya get shot at a little less there . I hope you listen to your instructors in the Army better than this or you might be one of those we hear about(regrettably) coming back home in a bag. DONT ASSUME ANYTHING!!! when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME. And now I am finished with this thread

You still dont get it do you? I referred to .38 cal pistols while I was an AP and you ASSUME I have only been an AP in the USAF. I served 2 years in the 116 Armored Cav in the US Army BEFORE I RE-ENLISTED in the USAF cuz ya get shot at a little less there . I hope you listen to your instructors in the Army better than this or you might be one of those we hear about(regrettably) coming back home in a bag. DONT ASSUME ANYTHING!!! when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME. And now I am finished with this thread

Scooter, I'm not sure what I didn't "get." How could I have known you were in the Army before you were in the Air Force if you never said so? I'm not psychic. Yes, I assumed that your experience was in the Air Force, since that is all you mentioned. If you mentioned Army experience, I must have missed it, and if so I apologize.

Once again, I wasn't seeking to offend anyone, I was just relating my observations of what dozens of recent vets have said to me. I'm sure everyone would agree that battlefields are chaotic; I thought that was just stating the obvious. Further, I am sure everyone is aware that a chaotic environment increases the chances of missing when firing. If you disagree with these points, please explain why, rather than just attacking me personally, which accomplishes nothing.

I find I'm a pretty good listener, in or out of the Army. I did manage to make it through infantry school and airborne schools, plus being honor grad at most of the subsequent training I've attended. I have never fired less than expert on weapons qual, so I think I can put into practice what I hear.

I'd certainly be grateful to read about your own combat experiences, if you care to post them, since I am always eager to learn something that might save my life next year. That's why I try to talk to as many vets as possible. And again, thanks for your service.

Mike, I read your posts and wanted you to know that I don't find anything offensive - not in the least. I too have wondered about statements suggesting that those who serve in the armed forces are all clamoring for the "good ole" 45 acp. Additionally, as you indicated, the situations that might require a pistol seem kind of limited. For myself, I would not be pulling a side arm unless I was out of ammunition for my rifle.

Mike
Going back and reading my own posts I guess it does sound more like I was trying to critisize rather than hear, I just get a little tweaked when youngsters(IE you) post posts with what often "APPEARS" to me to be an attitude of "I know more than you so you should shut up and listen",and frankly thats what a lot of yours have looked like "to me". Reminds me of a lot of 2nd looies that didnt listen to the SGTS....Now Im not calling anyone stupid but I think you are ignorant(as we all are) about a lot of things yet you wont seem to admit it sometimes and grrrrrrrrr............Ill just say its probably good My kids are grown and gone now too . I have no patience left.

Lousy apology too huh?
And as far as my experiences in combat go even my own kids have never heard a word about it so it wont be getting "aired" here either.No snub just the way it is.

Now why would you say that? I persume you fought in nam, or been to the rock pile, or sand bowl. .45 been all round the world with our fighting men and has served them well. .38 failed badly in the Philipin islands. Had to call for the 1911/.45 to put them down. Interesting your point of view.

Now why would you say that? I persume you fought in nam, or been to the rock pile, or sand bowl. .45 been all round the world with our fighting men and has served them well. .38 failed badly in the Philipin islands. Had to call for the 1911/.45 to put them down. Interesting your point of view.

You do know that that there were numerous reports from the Philippine Insurrection about .30-40 Krag rifles failing to put down Moros, right? .30-40 is just a bit more potent than .45 ACP. I am also unsure anyone is able to produce evidence that the .45s actually did any better than the .38s. Also, the Philippine Insurrection, including the Moro insurgency, was over by 1913, so I'm not sure how many 1911s could have realistically made it into theater.

You do know that that there were numerous reports from the Philippine Insurrection about .30-40 Krag rifles failing to put down Moros, right? .30-40 is just a bit more potent than .45 ACP. I am also unsure anyone is able to produce evidence that the .45s actually did any better than the .38s. Also, the Philippine Insurrection, including the Moro insurgency, was over by 1913, so I'm not sure how many 1911s could have realistically made it into theater.

Well it's one thing for sure there was enough there to be document and recorded in history or do we look the other way and say they .38-.40 Krag won the conflick. How can you be so sure they weren't there in 1913? I can remember reading about them in high school history. Bet you couldn't find it in a history book today. I guess that's why you take a negitive outlook on what I said. I tell you what your a young computer savy guy how about you prove that it wasn't there and not just here say or your opinion.